From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:39:05 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200601291251.32808.jyavner@member.fsf.org> <857j8i51hk.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85k6chwm59.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85vew0t60k.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138830885 26548 80.91.229.2 (1 Feb 2006 21:54:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:54:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jyavner@member.fsf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 22:54:43 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Pus-0003DB-Bo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:53:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Pxw-0000Kc-Js for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:56:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4O5r-000146-LP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:56:43 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4O5p-00012y-GZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:56:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4NtY-0006GE-PJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4NsD-0001Ec-6d; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:42:37 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1F4Non-0000HO-Iu; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:39:27 -0500 Original-To: David Kastrup In-reply-to: <85vew0t60k.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:57:31 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49880 Archived-At: > Archaic does not imply "dead", but it does imply "not very much > alive". Anyway, the relevant point is "archaic" is a smear term. "Archaic life forms" are those that have survived basically unchanged for millions of years, that were so well-adapted to their ecological niche that natural selection has not weeded them out or made them undergo significant changes. That's not really a "smear term". That one example doesn't disprove the point, it just misses the point. To describe _usage_ as "archaic" says it is no longer current.